Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Best Deer Hunting State: Kentucky Takes Top Spot in New Whitetail Scale

May 21, 2013
Best Deer Hunting State: Kentucky Takes Top Spot in New Whitetail Scale - 18

Every year hunting magazines run stories about which states have become the latest trophy-­whitetail hotspots. There’s a problem with all of these stories: They only look at the total number of trophy bucks killed.

The trouble with this is that states with higher deer populations and more hunters have an unfair advantage. Take Wisconsin, which has 1.5 million deer and about 14 hunters per square mile. In comparison, Kentucky has 900,000 whitetails and seven hunters per square mile. Given that about half of all fawns born are bucks, Wisconsin has about 750,000 bucks and Kentucky has about 450,000. You don’t have to be a math whiz to realize that having more bucks and more deer hunters increases your odds of having more trophy deer harvested.

What’s needed is a real-world barometer of trophy-deer trends, and that’s what Outdoor Life is doing with our Whitetail Scale. It’s a metric that evens out some of the huge discrepancies between various states and considers trophy deer on an apples-to-apples basis.

Instead of looking at total number of deer, our scale considers the proportion of each state’s bucks that make the Boone and Crockett record book. Because looking at just one year of data can be misleading, we also crunched harvest data from the last three years, allowing us to spot trends.

And we look beyond the antlers. When deciding where to go to pursue the trophy of a lifetime, hunters consider other factors, like hunter density, the cost of a nonresident outfitted hunt, and even how accommodating each state’s deer regulations are.

Factoring in these measures gives us a comprehensive and repeatable method for determining the top trophy states.

1. MEASUREMENT: 
Trophy Production

We started with harvest data from the 20 states with the highest number of Boone and Crockett bucks in the past three years. Each state received a score based on the percentage of harvested bucks that qualified for B&C registry. Then, because trophy production is obviously the biggest consideration for big-buck hunters, we weighted the scale to give a maximum of two points—twice as many as other categories—to states that consistently produce the most trophy whitetails. We gave the top states two points, the bottom states half a point, and the rest a single point. The way this metric works, to use the case of top-scoring Indiana as an example, is to take the total buck harvest (156,602 from 2009–2011) and divide it by the number of bucks (131) entered in the Boone and Crockett records for that same time frame.

States with top B&C entries as apercentage of total buck harvest
Indiana.................. 0 .084%
Kentucky.............. 0.082%
Kansas.................. 0.078%
Iowa....................... 0.078%
Illinois................... 0.065%

2. MEASUREMENT:  
Hunter Density

This metric calculates competition for a trophy buck. We divided the total number of firearms hunters in each state by the total land area in square miles. Hunter densities ranged from less than one hunter per square mile (North Dakota) to more than 11 (Ohio and Wisconsin).

Five states received one point for fewer than 3 hunters per square mile, seven got .5 points for 3.1 to 5.5 hunters, two got .25 points for 5.6 to 10, and three got 0 points for more than 10 hunters per square mile.

Firearms Hunter Density
North Dakota..............0.8/sq. mi.
Nebraska.......................1.0/sq. mi.
South Dakota...............1.1/sq. mi.
Kansas............................1.4/sq. mi.
Iowa.................................2.6/sq. mi.

A 176 2/8-inch Kentucky typical killed by Brian Caubarreaux.

3. MEASUREMENT: 
Cost of Outfitted Hunts

Research shows that if you’re a nonresident hunter, hiring an outfitter gives the best shot at bagging a trophy whitetail. Because outfitters’ rates and offerings vary, as do the cost of nonresident hunting licenses, this evaluation was difficult to assess evenly. But it’s more consistent than the other metric that we considered: the amount of huntable public land in each state.

For each state, we averaged the fee of three outfitters that offer a fair-chase, five-day, fully guided hunt (including lodging and meals) during the rut, and also factored in nonresident license fees.

Not surprisingly, outfitters and game agencies in states with reputations for producing trophy deer charge more than those in states that don’t share that big-buck glow. At an average cost of $4,201, hunters will fork over the most money to hunt deer in Illinois, followed by Texas ($4,065), Kansas ($3,830), Nebraska ($3,800), and Iowa ($3,633). Kentucky ($2,590), Ohio ($2,783), and Indiana ($2,747) give hunters a good shot at a record buck for a lower price.

Cost of Outfitted Hunts
Under $2,600 = 1 point
$2,601–$3,500 = .5
$3,501 and over = 0

4. MEASUREMENT: 
Hunter Friendliness

Some states’ nonsensical restrictions will leave hunters scratching their heads. We gave South Dakota zero points for prohibiting the use of electronic bow-mounted devices of any kind, including illuminated sight pins. Illinois lost half a point for requiring shotguns capable of firing no more than three slugs. Most other states received a single point.

The Winner: 
The Bluegrass State
After tallying scores, we found that Kentucky is the clear winner. The western part of the state, in particular, is producing a ton of trophy deer, and many big bucks survive the early rut. “Hunt late in the season,” says Carl Doron, owner of Snipe Creek Lodge. “There’s nobody here.”

Here’s our ranking of the top 10 whitetail states.
1. Kentucky............................4.5 points
2. Kansas...............................4.0 points
3. Indiana...............................4.0 points
4. Iowa....................................4.0 points
5. Minnesota.........................3.5 points
6. Illinois.................................3.0 points
7. Mississippi........................3.0 points
8. Nebraska...........................3.0 points
9. Ohio.....................................3.0 points
10. Oklahoma........................3.0 points

Comments (18)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Culver Chuck wrote 37 weeks 1 day ago

I live in Western Kentucky and have hunted deer since I was a kid. Last year I took the biggest deer of my life. I contribute the success to two things, one you've heard of the other you probably have not. First our state is doing an excellent job managing our herd (kudos to them!. Second, late winter 2009 we had a boost of sorts. Western Kentucky had the most terrible ice storm in its history. It literally tore our forest canopy open. The tops of most our hardwoods snapped off. Sunlight hit the forest floor and the forage plants really grew. Hunting in 2009 was very difficult and somewhat dangerous in some spots as dead ice broken branches were still falling out off trees months later. Hunters had to be on the watch not to set up under a "widow maker" tree. Three years out our buck population went nuts. The combination of food and improved habitat made for some outstanding bucks. This season will be the fourth year out from the ice storm. While I don't think we will see as many bucks I think the bucks that we do see that made it through last year will be some really nice trophies. I'm looking forward to hunting this year!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from OopNord wrote 1 year 5 days ago

While I believe that all of the states listed above are good states for pursuing our whitetail addictions, I find fundamental flaws with the hypotheses utilized to arrive at the conclusion. In the current manta of "Big Data and Intelligent Analytics", there is a better way to approach this... We all use wind direction, scent control, game cameras, and range finders to improve our success...
Take a look a the counties in each state wherein the majority of Boone & Crocket and Pope & Young entries come from. Certain areas in the "golden triangle" of Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma. Montana and Minnesota continue to produce bruisers... Public land is much more difficult to hunt and manage deer. Choosing areas to hunt in wherein access is somewhat limited, but QDM policies are eagerly adhered to, will yield the highest probability of success. I don't believe you need to have to book a hunt in Pike County, Ill or Buffalo County, Wi, but if you want to increase your odds and improve your budget, start looking at up & coming areas in Trempleau, Shawano or Waupaca county in Wisconsin or similar up & coming counties in other states. From a Macroeconomic perspective, I am not as concerned about the state, as I am with the individual plot of land I am hunting on and its proximity to neighboring properties and the type of deer management that is taking place.

Having grown up in whitetail rich Wisconsin, where the DNR endorses "brown its down" deer management philosophies, taking a trophy buck on public lands was like winning a power ball lottery... It just does not happen very often. Therein, I would be more concerned about locating key areas that consistently produce large whitetails if I am looking for B&C or P&Y material...

There is an old saying, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics"... This article tends to follow to this mantra.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from OopNord wrote 1 year 5 days ago

While I believe that all of the states listed above are good states for pursuing our whitetail addictions, I find fundamental flaws with the hypotheses utilized to arrive at the conclusion. In the current manta of "Big Data and Intelligent Analytics", there is a better way to approach this... We all use wind direction, scent control, game cameras, and range finders to improve our success...
Take a look a the counties in each state wherein the majority of Boone & Crocket and Pope & Young entries come from. Certain areas in the "golden triangle" of Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma. Montana and Minnesota continue to produce bruisers... Public land is much more difficult to hunt and manage deer. Choosing areas to hunt in wherein access is somewhat limited, but QDM policies are eagerly adhered to, will yield the highest probability of success. I don't believe you need to have to book a hunt in Pike County, Ill or Buffalo County, Wi, but if you want to increase your odds and improve your budget, start looking at up & coming areas in Trempleau, Shawano or Waupaca county in Wisconsin or similar up & coming counties in other states. From a Macroeconomic perspective, I am not as concerned about the state, as I am with the individual plot of land I am hunting on and its proximity to neighboring properties and the type of deer management that is taking place.

Having grown up in whitetail rich Wisconsin, where the DNR endorses "brown its down" deer management philosophies, taking a trophy buck on public lands was like winning a power ball lottery... It just does not happen very often. Therein, I would be more concerned about locating key areas that consistently produce large whitetails if I am looking for B&C or P&Y material...

There is an old saying, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics"... This article tends to follow to this mantra.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WI Bowhunter 95 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Darren, you've got to be kidding. We can see 20+ bucks a day in Nebraska on a lease, but it's all pressure related (actually, lack of pressure). In Wisconsin, outside of some leases in a few popular counties, the heavy hunting pressure makes it even tougher to tag a whopper in most areas (yet trophies come from throughout the state). You missed the boat on simply equating more deer and more hunters with more trophies. It could easily be argued that the more hunting pressure, the more nocturnal the whitetail. From the Jordan buck to the Johnny King buck, and everything in between, it's hard to beat Wisconsin!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WI Bowhunter 95 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Darren, you've got to be kidding. We can see 20+ bucks a day in Nebraska on a lease, but it's all pressure related (actually, lack of pressure). In Wisconsin, outside of some leases in a few popular counties, the heavy hunting pressure makes it even tougher to tag a whopper in most areas (yet trophies come from throughout the state). You missed the boat on simply equating more deer and more hunters with more trophies. It could easily be argued that the more hunting pressure, the more nocturnal the whitetail. From the Jordan buck to the Johnny King buck, and everything in between, it's hard to beat Wisconsin!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from avgMattt wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I don't know if I agree with how they came up with the results, but I will have to admit that I agree with Kentucky being #1. They have a great program to manage their deer. BUT, I would put Wisconsin at #2.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dencos wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

This is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever read! Does this guy write for obama?
That's it for me. I am not renewing my subscription, and I'm unsubscribing from this garbage. I have better use for my time.
ugh to

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from trapper vic wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

B & C Bucks require B&C hunters. Not every jack*ss in the woods with a gun is capable of bringing in a B&C buck. Factor that in!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from hunterruss wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Well, there's 20 minutes I will never get back. What a waste of time. Disappointed in Outdoor Life. Normally top-notch stuff.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from neubauer6 wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Wisconsin's not even on the list? Yeah, let's take this article seriously.....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JakeT_little.Racks wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

This is some of the biggest crap I've heard in a while. I usually respect Outdoorlife, but this information is not backed up with valid or correct support.

Cost of an outfitted hunt is a ludicrous stat, because good whitetail states are obviously going to cost more, and the bad states will be cheaper. Having Kentucky and Kansas at the top seems ridiculous to me, as well as WI not even being on the list and Iowa not being near the top.

I know you think you have came up with some revolutionary scale, but I believe you have just embarrassed yourself and disrespected hunters across America.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from joshd wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Numbers 1 and 2 in this deal are most useful, but yeah, numbers 3 and 4 are not so much in my mind. Outfitter costs don't seem totally relevant, as I'm sure there's a lot of guys like me that don't do outfitted hunts. Should maybe be a stat in here that takes into account public land and/or hunter density on public land. And for number 4: I doubt a three slug limit or not being able to use bow mounted electronic devices has swayed someone's decision to hunt in a particular state very often...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

joshd, I understand your concept. It needs to be in perspective if you use that type of theory. Huntable acres? The state population also helps dictate the amount of available land there is to hunt. In theory you could have a larger state with less hunting opportunites. If we are going to manipulate, lets do it fairly.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from joshd wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Throw 1 mathematical step into something and people don't know what to do. State lines are pretty arbitrary, the only way total number of B&C entries makes any sense is if states were all exactly the same size. You have to divide by area to make things comparable. Total B&C numbers mean absolutely nothing if you can't base it on an area. Wisconsin has about 15,000 more sq. miles of land than Kentucky (27% bigger). Hey, I got an idea: let's throw out weight classes in high school wrestling and in boxing. That makes sense!
And hunter densities are definitely very important to consider.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Would you like to guess where the author of this blog graduated with a masters degree from? The University of Kentucky. Ummm. Who would have guessed that? No connections I am sure. No way it is relevant to the reader.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Indiana ahead of Iowa and Illinois, and Wisconsin's not even on the list??? Sorry, but I don't think you're on to something revolutionary here.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from njschneider wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

But if you want a real hunting experience nothing beats Iowa's bow only rut. You haven't lived until you have hung a stand in Iowa. But South Dakota trumps Kentucky in my books for the do yourself factor, whitetail or mule deer, and nonresident friendlyness.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

I really think you can frame the statistics however you like and come up with just about any state. The truth is the numbers most experts will look at (right or wrong)are these numbers:

B&C Trophy Whitetail Production, 2005-2010
(Typical and non-typical trophies combined

1. Wisconsin, 383 entries (1980-1985 rank 3rd, 40 entries)
2. Illinois, 299 entries (1980-1985 rank 6th, 30 entries)
3. Iowa, 224 entries (1980-1985 rank 2nd, 59 entries)
4. Ohio, 215 entries (1980-1985 rank 14th, 16 entries)
5. Missouri, 214 entries (1980-1985 rank 9th (tie), 25 entries)
6. Kentucky, 199 entries (1980-1985 rank 9th (tie), 25 entries)
7. Indiana, 195 entries (1980-1985 rank 16th, 14 entries)
8. Kansas, 181 entries (1980-1985 rank 4th, 35 entries)
9. Minnesota, 172 entries (1980-1985 rank 1st, 76 entries)
10. Saskatchewan, 147 entries (1980-1985 rank 7th (tie), 27 entries)

+3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Would you like to guess where the author of this blog graduated with a masters degree from? The University of Kentucky. Ummm. Who would have guessed that? No connections I am sure. No way it is relevant to the reader.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

I really think you can frame the statistics however you like and come up with just about any state. The truth is the numbers most experts will look at (right or wrong)are these numbers:

B&C Trophy Whitetail Production, 2005-2010
(Typical and non-typical trophies combined

1. Wisconsin, 383 entries (1980-1985 rank 3rd, 40 entries)
2. Illinois, 299 entries (1980-1985 rank 6th, 30 entries)
3. Iowa, 224 entries (1980-1985 rank 2nd, 59 entries)
4. Ohio, 215 entries (1980-1985 rank 14th, 16 entries)
5. Missouri, 214 entries (1980-1985 rank 9th (tie), 25 entries)
6. Kentucky, 199 entries (1980-1985 rank 9th (tie), 25 entries)
7. Indiana, 195 entries (1980-1985 rank 16th, 14 entries)
8. Kansas, 181 entries (1980-1985 rank 4th, 35 entries)
9. Minnesota, 172 entries (1980-1985 rank 1st, 76 entries)
10. Saskatchewan, 147 entries (1980-1985 rank 7th (tie), 27 entries)

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Indiana ahead of Iowa and Illinois, and Wisconsin's not even on the list??? Sorry, but I don't think you're on to something revolutionary here.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from njschneider wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

But if you want a real hunting experience nothing beats Iowa's bow only rut. You haven't lived until you have hung a stand in Iowa. But South Dakota trumps Kentucky in my books for the do yourself factor, whitetail or mule deer, and nonresident friendlyness.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

joshd, I understand your concept. It needs to be in perspective if you use that type of theory. Huntable acres? The state population also helps dictate the amount of available land there is to hunt. In theory you could have a larger state with less hunting opportunites. If we are going to manipulate, lets do it fairly.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JakeT_little.Racks wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

This is some of the biggest crap I've heard in a while. I usually respect Outdoorlife, but this information is not backed up with valid or correct support.

Cost of an outfitted hunt is a ludicrous stat, because good whitetail states are obviously going to cost more, and the bad states will be cheaper. Having Kentucky and Kansas at the top seems ridiculous to me, as well as WI not even being on the list and Iowa not being near the top.

I know you think you have came up with some revolutionary scale, but I believe you have just embarrassed yourself and disrespected hunters across America.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hunterruss wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Well, there's 20 minutes I will never get back. What a waste of time. Disappointed in Outdoor Life. Normally top-notch stuff.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WI Bowhunter 95 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Darren, you've got to be kidding. We can see 20+ bucks a day in Nebraska on a lease, but it's all pressure related (actually, lack of pressure). In Wisconsin, outside of some leases in a few popular counties, the heavy hunting pressure makes it even tougher to tag a whopper in most areas (yet trophies come from throughout the state). You missed the boat on simply equating more deer and more hunters with more trophies. It could easily be argued that the more hunting pressure, the more nocturnal the whitetail. From the Jordan buck to the Johnny King buck, and everything in between, it's hard to beat Wisconsin!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from joshd wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Throw 1 mathematical step into something and people don't know what to do. State lines are pretty arbitrary, the only way total number of B&C entries makes any sense is if states were all exactly the same size. You have to divide by area to make things comparable. Total B&C numbers mean absolutely nothing if you can't base it on an area. Wisconsin has about 15,000 more sq. miles of land than Kentucky (27% bigger). Hey, I got an idea: let's throw out weight classes in high school wrestling and in boxing. That makes sense!
And hunter densities are definitely very important to consider.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from joshd wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Numbers 1 and 2 in this deal are most useful, but yeah, numbers 3 and 4 are not so much in my mind. Outfitter costs don't seem totally relevant, as I'm sure there's a lot of guys like me that don't do outfitted hunts. Should maybe be a stat in here that takes into account public land and/or hunter density on public land. And for number 4: I doubt a three slug limit or not being able to use bow mounted electronic devices has swayed someone's decision to hunt in a particular state very often...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from neubauer6 wrote 1 year 8 weeks ago

Wisconsin's not even on the list? Yeah, let's take this article seriously.....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from trapper vic wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

B & C Bucks require B&C hunters. Not every jack*ss in the woods with a gun is capable of bringing in a B&C buck. Factor that in!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WI Bowhunter 95 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Darren, you've got to be kidding. We can see 20+ bucks a day in Nebraska on a lease, but it's all pressure related (actually, lack of pressure). In Wisconsin, outside of some leases in a few popular counties, the heavy hunting pressure makes it even tougher to tag a whopper in most areas (yet trophies come from throughout the state). You missed the boat on simply equating more deer and more hunters with more trophies. It could easily be argued that the more hunting pressure, the more nocturnal the whitetail. From the Jordan buck to the Johnny King buck, and everything in between, it's hard to beat Wisconsin!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from OopNord wrote 1 year 5 days ago

While I believe that all of the states listed above are good states for pursuing our whitetail addictions, I find fundamental flaws with the hypotheses utilized to arrive at the conclusion. In the current manta of "Big Data and Intelligent Analytics", there is a better way to approach this... We all use wind direction, scent control, game cameras, and range finders to improve our success...
Take a look a the counties in each state wherein the majority of Boone & Crocket and Pope & Young entries come from. Certain areas in the "golden triangle" of Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma. Montana and Minnesota continue to produce bruisers... Public land is much more difficult to hunt and manage deer. Choosing areas to hunt in wherein access is somewhat limited, but QDM policies are eagerly adhered to, will yield the highest probability of success. I don't believe you need to have to book a hunt in Pike County, Ill or Buffalo County, Wi, but if you want to increase your odds and improve your budget, start looking at up & coming areas in Trempleau, Shawano or Waupaca county in Wisconsin or similar up & coming counties in other states. From a Macroeconomic perspective, I am not as concerned about the state, as I am with the individual plot of land I am hunting on and its proximity to neighboring properties and the type of deer management that is taking place.

Having grown up in whitetail rich Wisconsin, where the DNR endorses "brown its down" deer management philosophies, taking a trophy buck on public lands was like winning a power ball lottery... It just does not happen very often. Therein, I would be more concerned about locating key areas that consistently produce large whitetails if I am looking for B&C or P&Y material...

There is an old saying, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics"... This article tends to follow to this mantra.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from OopNord wrote 1 year 5 days ago

While I believe that all of the states listed above are good states for pursuing our whitetail addictions, I find fundamental flaws with the hypotheses utilized to arrive at the conclusion. In the current manta of "Big Data and Intelligent Analytics", there is a better way to approach this... We all use wind direction, scent control, game cameras, and range finders to improve our success...
Take a look a the counties in each state wherein the majority of Boone & Crocket and Pope & Young entries come from. Certain areas in the "golden triangle" of Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kentucky, Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma. Montana and Minnesota continue to produce bruisers... Public land is much more difficult to hunt and manage deer. Choosing areas to hunt in wherein access is somewhat limited, but QDM policies are eagerly adhered to, will yield the highest probability of success. I don't believe you need to have to book a hunt in Pike County, Ill or Buffalo County, Wi, but if you want to increase your odds and improve your budget, start looking at up & coming areas in Trempleau, Shawano or Waupaca county in Wisconsin or similar up & coming counties in other states. From a Macroeconomic perspective, I am not as concerned about the state, as I am with the individual plot of land I am hunting on and its proximity to neighboring properties and the type of deer management that is taking place.

Having grown up in whitetail rich Wisconsin, where the DNR endorses "brown its down" deer management philosophies, taking a trophy buck on public lands was like winning a power ball lottery... It just does not happen very often. Therein, I would be more concerned about locating key areas that consistently produce large whitetails if I am looking for B&C or P&Y material...

There is an old saying, "there are lies, damn lies and statistics"... This article tends to follow to this mantra.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Culver Chuck wrote 37 weeks 1 day ago

I live in Western Kentucky and have hunted deer since I was a kid. Last year I took the biggest deer of my life. I contribute the success to two things, one you've heard of the other you probably have not. First our state is doing an excellent job managing our herd (kudos to them!. Second, late winter 2009 we had a boost of sorts. Western Kentucky had the most terrible ice storm in its history. It literally tore our forest canopy open. The tops of most our hardwoods snapped off. Sunlight hit the forest floor and the forage plants really grew. Hunting in 2009 was very difficult and somewhat dangerous in some spots as dead ice broken branches were still falling out off trees months later. Hunters had to be on the watch not to set up under a "widow maker" tree. Three years out our buck population went nuts. The combination of food and improved habitat made for some outstanding bucks. This season will be the fourth year out from the ice storm. While I don't think we will see as many bucks I think the bucks that we do see that made it through last year will be some really nice trophies. I'm looking forward to hunting this year!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from dencos wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

This is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever read! Does this guy write for obama?
That's it for me. I am not renewing my subscription, and I'm unsubscribing from this garbage. I have better use for my time.
ugh to

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from avgMattt wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I don't know if I agree with how they came up with the results, but I will have to admit that I agree with Kentucky being #1. They have a great program to manage their deer. BUT, I would put Wisconsin at #2.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

bmxbiz